New police auditor contract to exclude internal conflicts within department | News | Palo Alto Online |


New police auditor contract to exclude internal conflicts within department

City Council adds three-year extension with firm OIR Group to its final meeting of the year

In its final meeting of the year, the Palo Alto City Council is preparing to approve a new contract with the city's independent police auditors that explicitly excludes investigations of conflicts between officers.

The council's consideration of the new contract was added to its Dec. 16 agenda on Thursday night, as part of a revised agenda for the meeting. The agenda was initially published on Dec. 5 and did not include that item. It also did not initially include proposed raises for City Attorney Molly Stump and City Clerk Beth Minor or a $4 million contribution from the city to help City Manager Ed Shikada buy a home within Palo Alto. The three contract amendments were similarly placed on the agenda on Thursday night.

The council's proposed $75,000 contract with the firm OIR Group would extend the agreement with the police auditors for three years. The two auditors, Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly, have been providing independent reviews of the Palo Alto Police Department's internal affairs investigations since 2006. They investigate every case of use of force and all citizen complaints against department officers, though they don't name officers.

The new contract will also clarify for the first time that the auditor will not look at police activities that do not involve members of the public. A report from the City Auditor's Office notes that a question arose this year regarding whether the auditors should review these types of cases.

"This type of matter could include complaints by PAPD personnel with respect to their supervisors or co-workers regarding unfair or discriminatory treatment in areas such as assignments, overtime, training promotion or interpersonal conduct," the report states.

Rather than have an independent auditor look into these cases, the city decided that the function should be performed by the Human Resources Department and barred from public disclosure. The decision to reconsider the city's policy on internal investigations was made shortly after the Palo Alto Daily Post reported in May on allegations that police Capt. Zach Perron used a racial slur in 2014 when talking to another officer. That officer, Marcus Barbour, has since left the Palo Alto Police Department and joined the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. The OIR Group was reportedly reviewing the case.

When asked about the 2014 incident, Palo Alto's Chief Communications Officer Meghan Horrigan-Taylor said the city cannot comment on personnel matters. The recommended contract, she said, "confirms and clarifies the longstanding traditional scope of IPA review of PD internal affairs investigations and deployment of a taser device."

"The City Manager, Chief of Police and police auditor have had discussions over the past few months over whether the auditor's scope of work should expand to include personnel matters, and a decision has been reached to continue the status quo," Horrigan-Taylor said, notwithstanding the fact that the new contract now contains a section excluding internal personnel matters.

In explaining its reason for excluding internal personnel matters from audits, the City Attorney's Office cited an interest in "protecting the privacy of sworn personnel so that these employees can do their work without concern about risk or intrusions into the personal and family affairs," despite the fact that the audits don't name the officers whose conduct they are reviewing. "In addition, the City has an obligation to maintain a confidential human resources system, so that employees feel safe coming forward to make complaints or to provide information in an investigation that involves their co-workers or supervisors."

In addition to approving the new contract, the council also plans to approve a 5% raise for Stump, bringing her salary to $313,414, and a 4.25% raise for Minor, bringing her salary to $159,182. It also plans to provide a $3 million contribution and a $1 million loan to City Manager Ed Shikada to help him buy a house in Palo Alto.

Shikada's contract with the city requires him to make his primary residence in Palo Alto "within a reasonable period of time." The contract doesn't spell out the city's obligation to help pay for his home but states that "the amount of the City contribution and any contribution from Shikada, the method of financing, and other elements of a purchase transaction will be determined through good faith negotiations and mutual agreement."

With the contribution, the city would become an investor in the property, which it would jointly own with Shikada based on how much each has invested. A report from Human Resources Department notes that the city "holds a high value of the City Manager living in Palo Alto." With the city's median home prices now at $2.8 million, the investment of $3 million in public funds "addresses the substantial housing challenges we face as a city with one of the highest costs for housing in the nation."

"Close proximity increases the Manager’s availability to respond to community issues, supports the

successful management of City operations and ensures the Manager is an integral part

of our community," the report states. "As a result, the City Council is committed to this financial support for



Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


8 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2019 at 11:15 am

>In explaining its reason for excluding internal personnel matters
>from audits, the City Attorney's Office cited an interest in
>"protecting the privacy of sworn personnel so that these employees
>can do their work without concern about risk or intrusions into
>the personal and family affairs,"

This seems like a sure-fire recipe for ensuring that corruption will never see the light of day in the Palo Alto Police Department. As pointed out in today’s Post editorial—what’s to keep every complaint against police officers becoming an “HR” matter and never leaving the closed-door offices of Police commanders?
Some years ago, one Sergeant Luis Verbera was accused by one, then several, young women of being detained during a police stop and then sexually assaulting them. The Police Chief (one Pat Dwyer) at first refused to believe the first complainant—but when several young ladies came forward, he begrudgingly commenced an investigation that led to Verbera’s arrest and conviction (although he pleaded “No Contest”).

The Council (if memory serves) never discussed this matter in open Chambers. As “representatives” of the public—they stood mute. The public was only represented by the Press. For all intents and purposes—the Council is useless when it comes to police misconduct, or criminal acts committed under color of authority—as the Verbara matter demonstrated.

Luis Verbera:
Web Link

Palo Alto City Councils too often walk away from their responsibilities to the public when they take their seats on the dais—demonstrating more concern for the wellbeing of employee unions and police unions than the public. Allowing the police to tell the public what the public can, and can not know about police affairs is certainly a predictable actions of this Council – but it would not be in the public’s interests.

Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2019 at 12:12 pm

I understand the stated reasoning for this particular effort, but, what is missing is a clearly stated process for dealing with the elephant in the room -- actual serious misconduct by uniformed officers. And, I'm not talking about shift assignments, although that certainly could be a serious issue in some cases. Serious misconduct, like sexual harassment and misconduct, assault, threats and intimidation, and so on. We, the public, need to know that officers who can't bring themselves to behave will be dismissed. At some point, serious infractions by police need to be made public.

Posted by sbw
a resident of Menlo Park

on Dec 16, 2019 at 1:38 pm

sbw is a registered user.

Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.

Like this comment
Posted by Trish Bubenik
a resident of University South
on Jan 1, 2020 at 8:13 pm

Please identify what "OIR" stands for. Thank you.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Anne Le Ziblatt, formerly of Tamarine and Bong Su, is back with a Vietnamese noodle bar in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 3,226 views

Local Pols Debate Climate
By Sherry Listgarten | 10 comments | 2,641 views

Letting Christmas Linger
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,393 views

The E.R.A. – no real equality yet. Why not?
By Diana Diamond | 13 comments | 858 views

Truth Matters (and so does good beer)
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 679 views